Special Counsel: "Trump would have been convicted."

January 14, 2025

[Note: Due to the late release of the special counsel’s report, this newsletter is a bit disjointed. I wanted to publish on schedule despite the late-breaking news, so I ask your understanding for the seeming lack of organization.]

Last Saturday, I spoke to readers on a Substack livestream. My thesis was that the next week will be among the most challenging we will face as Americans who care about the rule of law.

We will witness a president-elect—who tried to overturn the Constitution in his prior term—swear that he will “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”—words that will metastasize into a lie the moment he utters them. He will desecrate the Bible on which he places his hand.

The oath will be administered by a Chief Justice who granted the president-elect immunity from criminal liability, freeing Trump to ignore, attack, and undermine the Constitution.

We will watch confirmation hearings in which woefully unqualified nominees are hypocritically defended by a Republican Party that pays lip service to patriotism, law and order, and morality—except when it comes to GOP nominees credibly accused of rape, sexual assault, addictions, national security concerns, and promises to use the DOJ to exact vengeance on the president’s political opponents.

Those anticipated events are enough to make a rational person take to their bed and pull the covers over their head for the next four years. But it gets worse. Trump and MAGA are threatening to hold the victims of the Los Angeles wildfires as hostages to their efforts to raise the national debt limit (necessary to extend the 2017 tax cuts to billionaires and corporations). See Daily Beast, Republicans Float Holding California Fire Aid Hostage for Key Trump Policy.

It simply doesn’t get any more despicable than that. Every Republican who suggests that aid for victims should be conditioned on tax breaks for billionaires deserves their own circle in Dante’s Inferno.

Today’s newsletter touches on a fair number of stories that can be viewed as “bad news.” Readers sometimes tell me that they stop reading such newsletters. I get it. But I don’t make up the news; I just comment on it.

The advice that I gave to readers on Saturday is that they should adopt two strategies to remain engaged during rough times:

First, don’t collapse the future into the present moment. The future comes at us one day at a time. We will have time to deal with potential crises as they unfold. We don’t have to “fix” everything today. To be sure, we should plan, prepare, and strategize. But not everything we are worried about will materialize. We may successfully stop or delay threats from materializing.

Second, maintain “emotional distance” from bad news. Recognize that you can’t control most of what Trump says or does. Given that fact, recognize that unchanneled anxiety and fear will not change the outcome. Focus on what you can do to change, impede, obstruct, or reverse policies we oppose. I am not saying “Don’t care” or “Hide your feelings.” Feeling anxious or fearful is understandable and natural. But recognize that we have a professional responsibility as citizens to remain informed so we can be effective advocates for the rule of law.

Okay, with that longer-than-usual throat clearing, let’s look at the stories that came at us with high velocity and frequency on Monday.

---

Judge Cannon continues to act in a lawless manner by obstructing release of portion of Jack Smith reports

Judge Aileen Cannon continues to issue orders regarding the reports of special counsel Jack Smith. As to the portion of the report relating to Trump's unlawful retention of national defense documents, Cannon has slowed the release of that document—including to Congress. Her order permitted the release of the portion of the report relating to Trump's election interference—a case over which she has no jurisdiction.

See MSNBC, Jack Smith's report on Trump election interference set for release after Cannon order

By the time you read this newsletter, it is highly likely that a portion of Jack Smith’s report will have been posted on the DOJ website. If so, I will address that report in Tuesday evening’s newsletter.

Judge Cannon’s unrestrained, lawless assertion of jurisdiction over matters plainly beyond her constitutional authority is a scandal for the federal judiciary. At one point in her order issued on January 13, Cannon says she doesn’t understand why the report regarding the national defense documents needs to be released to Congress. Cannon knows full well that one of Trump's nominees under consideration by the Senate (Kash Patel) is mentioned in the special counsel report.

Her order denying the report to Congress is nothing less than an effort to interfere with the Senate’s constitutional duty of “advice and consent.” See Emptywheel on Substack, Aileen Cannon Interfering with Chuck Grassley and Dick Durbin's Constitutional Duty.

Both the 11th Circuit and the US Supreme Court are to blame for Cannon’s lawless actions—actions that undermine the faith of the American people in the third branch of government. Removal of Cannon from the cases (if not the bench) is long overdue.

---

UPDATE: Jack Smith’s report is released; says Trump would have been convicted

Per the NYTimes, Jack Smith’s report on Trump's election interference was released on Tuesday morning. See New York Times, Special Counsel Report Says Trump Would Have Been Convicted in Election Case. (Accessible to all.)

Per the Times, the report concluded:

The department’s view that the Constitution prohibits the continued indictment and prosecution of a president is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the government’s proof or the merits of the prosecution, which the office stands fully behind.

Indeed, but for Mr. Trump’s election and imminent return to the presidency, the office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial.

Jack Smith’s reached the right conclusion—as is obvious to anyone who watched the January 6 insurrection and related coup unfold on live television.

---

Hearing on Hegseth nomination set for Tuesday

Despite his manifest unfitness, Pete Hegseth will sit for a confirmation hearing in the Senate on Tuesday. Hegseth lacks the experience and temperament to run a 2 million+ person organization. Hegseth has been accused of rape and sexual harassment. He has been accused of financial mismanagement. His chest is tattooed with symbols associated with Christian nationalists. He opposes women in combat positions in the military. He opposes diversity initiatives in the military.

Trump and his acolytes have turned support for Hegseth into a test of loyalty to Trump. See Intelligencer, Pete Hegseth Is a Test.

The FBI appears to have omitted important witnesses from Hegseth’s background check—including his former wives and the woman who told police in 2017 that Hegseth sexually assaulted her. See NBC News, Pete Hegseth's FBI background check doesn't include interviews with key women from his past.

Hegseth faces a long list of allegations of misconduct. See Mother Jones, A Running List of the Allegations Against Pete Hegseth – Mother Jones. We should expect Republicans to run interference for Hegseth while Democrats try to uncover the truth about Hegseth’s past.

---

Will Elon Musk buy TikTok?

It appears that the parent company of TikTok may be forced to divest itself of TikTok in order to continue operating in the US. See Reuters, Supreme Court appears inclined to uphold TikTok ban in US.

Elon Musk has emerged as a potential purchaser. See Forbes, China Reportedly Considers Elon Musk As Potential TikTok Buyer —Here’s Everything We Know.

Given Musk’s tolerance for and promotion of disinformation on Twitter, his purchase of TikTok could further undermine the US information environment. The fact that China is considering a sale to Musk suggests that China believes that selling TikTok to Musk will harm America’s national security and domestic tranquility. That is not an unreasonable conclusion.

---

Amazon and Facebook remove policies in support of diversity

The ongoing surrender of American oligarchs to Donald Trump has been a truly pathetic spectacle. The world’s richest men have prostrated themselves before the greatest threat to American democracy.

Jeff Bezos has caused Amazon to jump onto the “anti-DEI” bandwagon, according to an internal memo obtained by the media. Per the memo, Amazon is “winding down outdated programs and materials.” Those “outdated programs” apparently include programs titled, “Equity for Black people,” “Diversity, equity and inclusion” and “LGBTQ+ rights”—all of which just disappeared from Amazon’s website. See CNBC, Amazon to halt some of its DEI programs: Internal memo.

Amazon employs 1.6 million people. Sixty-five percent (65%) of employees in Amazon’s warehouses and call centers are Black, Hispanic, or Native American. In contrast, only 18% of Amazon’s management and tech positions are held by Black, Hispanic, and Native American workers.

In other words, the highest-paying jobs at Amazon are overwhelmingly filled by white workers, and the lowest-paying jobs are filled by Black, Hispanic, and Native American workers. It sounds like Amazon should be redoubling its efforts to promote diversity and inclusion, not cutting them back. But Jeff Bezos is a coward afraid to disobey his overlord, Donald Trump.

Pathetic. And sad, for the employees of Amazon and the American people.

But it gets worse. Bezos famously ordered the Washington Post editorial board to kill its planned endorsement of Kamala Harris because Bezos’s view is that the newspaper shouldn’t be telling its subscribers what to think. But now that Trump is president, WaPo has no problem in endorsing Pam Bondi to lead the Department of Justice.

The WaPo editorial board heaped praise on Pam Bondi, who was the Attorney General of Florida when Trump University was under investigation for fraud. After Trump made a $25,000 contribution to Pam Bondi’s re-election campaign, Bondi dropped the investigation of Trump University.

Oh, and the WaPo editorial board failed to mention that Pam Bondi served as a lobbyist for Amazon—you know, the kind of thing that might cause readers of WaPo to consider whether the editorial board was being objective. See Rolling Stone, Jeff Bezos’ Editorial Board Calls Trump’s AG Pick, Who Lobbied for Amazon, ‘Qualified’.

Trump must be very happy with Jeff Bezos’s sudden change in view about whether WaPo should make endorsements.

Unbelievably, Mark Zuckerberg has fallen even further than Jeff Bezos. In an effort to curry favor with Trump, Zuckerberg is unveiling “the new Mark”—who is tough and brave, unlike the “old Mark”, who is a socially awkward nerd. See WSJ, Zuckerberg Debuts ‘Real Mark’ in Push to Woo Trump.

Per the WSJ,

Mark Zuckerberg wants Donald Trump to get to know the “real Mark.”

That’s the latest message the shape-shifting chief executive sought to relay to the masses as he pushes a frenzied effort to recast himself as a friend of the president-elect at a moment of peril and opportunity for Meta Platforms.

On Friday, Zuckerberg met with Trump in Florida for the second time in seven weeks and torched Meta’s longstanding diversity policies. . . .

Also on Friday, Zuckerberg appeared on Joe Rogan’s podcast to trash the Biden administration and extol the benefits of masculinity in corporate leadership.

“I do think a lot of our society has become…kind of like, neutered, or like, emasculated.”

So, both Bezos and Zuckerberg have eliminated the commitment to diversity at their companies as they fall over themselves to impress Trump.

Pathetic. And sad, for the employees of Meta and the American people.

---

On the bright side, Jennifer Rubin and Norm Eisen have launched The Contrarian on Substack.

Jennifer Rubin, one of WaPo’s most prominent political commentators, quit the Washington Post on Monday and has joined Substack with Norman Eisen. See Jennifer Rubin and Norman Eisen, The Contrarian | Substack.

The Contrarian will host a number of the leading Substack authors (and others), most of whom will also continue their own Substacks. The list of contributors includes Laurence Tribe, Joyce Vance, Barbara McQuade, Andrew Weissman, Katie Phang, Harry Litman, Stephen Vladeck, Sherrilyn Ifill, and Michael Podhorzer.

This is terrific news on several fronts. First, it is gratifying to see Jennifer Rubin stand on principle and leave the Post. It is great news that she has landed at Substack. Her presence will add to Substack’s growing reputation as an alternative, reliable news source to replace the legacy media.

I have already become a paying subscriber to the Contrarian and look forward to its success on Substack. It will be a reliable ally in the resistance. Check it out!

---

Concluding Thoughts

January 20, 2025, is Martin Luther King Day. It is also Inauguration Day. I know that many readers will make plans to avoid watching the Inauguration. I know I will—because the Inauguration of Donald Trump will be a moment of national disgrace and desecration rather than an occasion for celebration of the peaceful transfer of power.

If you have other plans, I encourage you to keep them. But if you do not currently have other plans during the Inauguration, join me on a livestream on Substack. While I don’t have the program planned (because of the fires in LA), I intend—among other things—to read portions of Letter From Birmingham Jail and other appropriate documents. I am open to suggestions.

I can’t promise a glossy, high-value production. I can promise we will be together in community on a difficult day for everyone who holds America dear. Details to follow.

Stay strong! Talk to you tomorrow!

---

Daily Dose of Perspective

As of 11:00 pm, the winds are calm in the San Fernando Valley area of Los Angeles. The skies are clear. The nebula below is M1—the Crab Nebula, which was formed by a supernova explosion in 1054. Astronomers around the world noted the supernova explosion that created M1. The Crab Nebula is located 6,500 light-years from Earth.